I’m not sure this generalization applies very well to groups that don’t claim exclusive access to their members. Religions, states, and “movements” are generally somewhat jealous of their members’ loyalties, and object to having them split.
I can be a member of many elements of the rationalist diaspora, and I can ignore those I like. This seems strictly superior to trying to force them all into one set of standards and expectations.
It may be superior for the individual, but it is often worse for the group’s ability to coordinate and get stuff done. Similarly, when the diaspora first started, many people had the choice of whether to continue posting on LW or whether to create their own blog, gaining personal status/influence but damaging the unity of the group. The latter broadly won out, to the detriment of the project as a whole.
Now obviously making your own blog wasn’t just defecting—there were serious issues with LessWrong’s culture and standards that made posting there feel like a chore. But ideally we would have fixed that such that the locally incentivized behavior was that which was better for the project as a whole rather than that which helped the individual at the cost of the group. Sadly, we missed the opportunity, at least when the issue first came up.
It may be superior for the individual, but it is often worse for the group’s ability to coordinate and get stuff done.
This may be a crux for our disagreement. I deny that the group has any moral weight, except as a sum of individual experiences. If it helps the individuals to find groups that fit better so they can coordinate better, that’s good.
Now you can certainly argue that some leavers are making a tactical mistake, and they would be better off staying. I don’t disagree, but I want to acknowledge that the opposite error also happens (staying when one should splinter), and it’s extremely idiosyncratic which one to weigh most heavily in any situation.
I deny that the group has any moral weight, except as a sum of individual experiences. If it helps the individuals to find groups that fit better so they can coordinate better, that’s good.
What about as a coordination mechanism that can make things better for individuals in the long term?
What about as a coordination mechanism that can make things better for individuals in the long term?
I think that falls under the “made a mistake” heading. The individuals are incorrect in thinking they’re better off with a different set of groups and coordination mechanisms.
I do think that sometimes people stay in things that they should split off from. However, I’ve noticed that locally there seems to be a lot of praise for the “archipelago” and the like, and also that the community seems to have been seriously damaged by splintering too much and losing its unity and sense of shared progress. I think these things are connected and that at least around here, people should be more wary about splitting off than they are by default.
Was the splinter issue more one of 1) people going off and starting a new place by themself, as opposed to 2) bringing people with them/trying to bring everyone with them? (If an entire group moves to a new place, and starts over and it works, this seems like the same result as if they’d stayed in the same place and fixed things. I.E. A hundred islands is worse than ten.)
I’m not sure this generalization applies very well to groups that don’t claim exclusive access to their members. Religions, states, and “movements” are generally somewhat jealous of their members’ loyalties, and object to having them split.
I can be a member of many elements of the rationalist diaspora, and I can ignore those I like. This seems strictly superior to trying to force them all into one set of standards and expectations.
It may be superior for the individual, but it is often worse for the group’s ability to coordinate and get stuff done. Similarly, when the diaspora first started, many people had the choice of whether to continue posting on LW or whether to create their own blog, gaining personal status/influence but damaging the unity of the group. The latter broadly won out, to the detriment of the project as a whole.
Now obviously making your own blog wasn’t just defecting—there were serious issues with LessWrong’s culture and standards that made posting there feel like a chore. But ideally we would have fixed that such that the locally incentivized behavior was that which was better for the project as a whole rather than that which helped the individual at the cost of the group. Sadly, we missed the opportunity, at least when the issue first came up.
This may be a crux for our disagreement. I deny that the group has any moral weight, except as a sum of individual experiences. If it helps the individuals to find groups that fit better so they can coordinate better, that’s good.
Now you can certainly argue that some leavers are making a tactical mistake, and they would be better off staying. I don’t disagree, but I want to acknowledge that the opposite error also happens (staying when one should splinter), and it’s extremely idiosyncratic which one to weigh most heavily in any situation.
What about as a coordination mechanism that can make things better for individuals in the long term?
I think that falls under the “made a mistake” heading. The individuals are incorrect in thinking they’re better off with a different set of groups and coordination mechanisms.
I do think that sometimes people stay in things that they should split off from. However, I’ve noticed that locally there seems to be a lot of praise for the “archipelago” and the like, and also that the community seems to have been seriously damaged by splintering too much and losing its unity and sense of shared progress. I think these things are connected and that at least around here, people should be more wary about splitting off than they are by default.
Was the splinter issue more one of 1) people going off and starting a new place by themself, as opposed to 2) bringing people with them/trying to bring everyone with them? (If an entire group moves to a new place, and starts over and it works, this seems like the same result as if they’d stayed in the same place and fixed things. I.E. A hundred islands is worse than ten.)